Happy Atheist Forum

Ok, obviously this is a complete hypothetical so I ask that you simply play along.

Let's pretend for just a moment that God exists and there is, indeed, a heaven and a hell (or something of that sort).  If an atheist lives his whole life by a relatively strict moral code, generally treating others as he would wish to be treated, would God care if that person believed in him or not?  

As a fairly new atheist, this is something I've contemplated while going through the "what if I'm wrong" phase.  I find it to be somewhat unreasonable that God would punish people for doubting his existence based on the (lack of) evidence HE gave us using the critical, inquisitive minds HE gave us.  Why would God punish people for using the same logical thinking processes which have enabled the human race to survive.   In fact, I think God would prefer to have people who used their minds in a rational manner during their time on earth in his presence rather than people who simply followed the flock and never bothered to challenge themselves and the belief system they happen to have been born into.

I suppose it doesn't matter since I have absolutely no earthly reason to believe any such place exists...but it's something I would imagine most of us have at least considered.  Thoughts?

Well, if we're playing along then...obsviously he has a sense of humor, and we atheists would be like a running gag for him.

But yeah, I do agree with you I suppose. If it turns out I'm completely wrong and find myself at the pearly gate I'd probably say, "My Bad, God...eh...what can I say? you made me this way apparently. I lived my life well, didn't cause any serious damage, think I can still pass through that eye of a needle?"

I think he'd like that whole deal with a needle and let me in.

Why do you think that this God of you is a HE? If HE is male than HE has a penis, otherwise HE is an impotent IT. We must therefore assume that there is also a SHE somewhere around and some KIDS as well. Being a family man your God would more likely be someone like Odin instead of this rather pathetic single person the christians know from their bible. So f##k moral codes, just kill a couple of your enemies with a broadsword, while wearing a funny helmet,  and up you go to Valhalla (to feast on roasted boar and drink intoxicating mead) on the day you die.

I guess answering this, even hypothetically, means having to first define which "God" we're talking about. If you mean the christian god, then my answer is "no", even good atheists don't get into heaven. That's a no-brainer.

But if you mean one of the many other gods that people all over the world worship, then the answers will change. Vishnu, Zeus, Allah (technically different, based on the Koran), Ra, Qezacoatl?

Hypothetically, if the god of the bible exists and everything in the bible is true, then we're all going to hell.  I'll bring the chips and dip.

If there is a god but he/she/it doesn't have anything to do with the bible, then we have a fighting chance to explain our choices and possibly get into heaven.  

Valhalla sounds pretty good too...    :cheers:

Not easy to answer for anyone who has an absence of "beliefs". Maybe yes, maybe no. (Maybe snow?)

   People who have "beliefs" should be able to provide a more philosophical answer.

+

I think the important part of what defines "god" is a being worthy of worship.  So, if a supreme beign does exist then I would only consider it worthy of worship if it at least let everyone who was good have a nice afterlife.  I also wouldn't consider it worthy of worship if it had an eternal hellfire for those who are bad...I wouldn't necessarily have a problem with bad people ceasing to exist rather than being rewarded with eternity.

But of course, this is just hypothetical.

I don't want to spend eternity surrounded by theists. Let me be with people in limbo or something. The reward for my good behavior is simply self respect. I don't need some perfect existence without things like pain, disappointment, and sickness. It is the bad in life that gives the good things meaning. Perfection is meaningless.

Dude...there are no naked chicks with big boobs in heaven. Remember all the strippers, hookers, escorts, massage parlor women, etc. will reside in hell. Heaven has those frigid girls who never put out because they used God  as an excuse to wait until marriage...

Spring Break: Hell! HELLS YEAH!!!

Actually, I say we lie to get in, overthrow god, and replace him with science!!! Muhahaha.

i think that most humble christians would admit that they are not god, and as such cannot say with certainty who is and who is not getting in to heaven. what about people groups who have never been visited by missionaries? most christians would not say that those people are going to hell.

christians believe that humans were made in the image of God. because of this, our qualities supposedly reflect god's qualities. so using our reasoning is a positive thing. i mean, a lot of early science was christians trying to find out more about the world god created. i think that christians do have evidences for god, and they are worth reading. i don't think that people should be atheists without considering any arguments for god, or christians without considering arguments against god.

Good thread!

Quote from: "liketolearn"what about people groups who have never been visited by missionaries?

Hehe, I thought this was funny.  It reminded my of "Tommy" by the Who.  Remember the Christmas song, since Tommy was deaf, dumb and blind they couldn't teach him about Jesus and praying.  Lyrics:

"And Tommy doesn't know what day it is.
Doesn't know who Jesus was or what praying is.
How can he be saved, from the eternal grave?"

So, these people won't go to hell, but they can't go to heaven either, right?  In a real case like Tommy's (that is, if he were real), how would he be saved (since he hasn't accepted Jesus as his lord and savior)?  Or does god just have something against cripples (which would explain why he doesn't heal amputees - check out http://www.whywontgodhealamputees.com)?

Quote from: "liketolearn"humans were made in the image of God. because of this, our qualities supposedly reflect god's qualities

Just a small point, if you reverse god and humans in this sentence, it also works really well:

god was made in the image of humans.  because of this, his qualities reflect human qualities.

Quote from: "liketolearn"i don't think that people should be atheists without considering any arguments for god, or christians without considering arguments against god.

Couldn't agree more strongly - right on!

Quote from: "Willravel"Actually, I say we lie to get in, overthrow god, and replace him with science!!! Muhahaha.

Sweet!  I kept thinking of "Paradise Lost" by John Milton:
"or once more With rallied Arms to try what may be yet Regaind in Heav'n".  Just 'cause Lucifer lost doesn't mean someone else can't win...

Quote from: "laetusatheos"I also wouldn't consider it worthy of worship if it had an eternal hellfire for those who are bad...

Or demanded it's own son as a blood sacrifice as ransom for humanity's sins?

Quote from: "MommaSquid"Hypothetically, if the god of the bible exists and everything in the bible is true, then we're all going to hell. I'll bring the chips and dip.

I'll bring the beer!  I'm thinking, sulfur smoked porter...

I can only comment on the Christian God since I'm not a professor of comparative religion.

Let's pretend for just a moment that God exists and there is, indeed, a heaven and hell.

Let's pretend that God desired a family.

Let's pretend He created a universe bound by time and matter, with little sentient beings.

Let's pretend He is omniscient, so He knows exactly what will happen to each of these being.  Every particle that exploded into existence went exactly where He planned it to go due to His brilliant laws of physics.  Every being's intellect, will, and emotional makeup determined through the brilliant laws of D.N.A mixed with environmental factors in a chemical and psychological concoction only God could have foreordained.  

Let's pretend these beings have a spiritual component that exists in a different dimension and is thus unperceivable to the beings themselves, save for the nagging questions it puts in their heads about why they exist and where they came from, and where they are going.

Let's pretend the world they live on is full of beauty and shit.  And God doesn't appear to every person to prove Himself to them.

Let's pretend He wanted to show us an actual physical example of how He wants us to love each other, so He incarnates Himself, lives a life dedicated to loving other's and correcting wrong teaching about Him, then is executed as a result, demonstrating the fullest extent of love.  

Let's pretend that there are reasons for the suffering these beings are going though.  One part this:

Quote from: "Willravel"It is the bad in life that gives the good things meaning. Perfection is meaningless.

Another part: purification.  The final result: perfection.

Let's pretend some people took the manuscripts that were written about Him, put them together in a book, and started worshipping the book more than the God that the book was about.

Let's pretend they mistranslated a word that means age-lasting into eternal so they could keep their Hellenistic views of eternal torment to use as a whip to keep people in line, threatening them with the worst thing imaginable.

Let's pretend some people were influenced by their D.N.A./environment in such a way that made them decide God must not exist.  (Let's keep in mind He planned all this out.)  Let's pretend the poor example that the religious folks set caused a bitter backlash from these people, so they discarded the book-worshipping, revenge-doctrine priests as what they really were- vipers.

Let's pretend the atheist (who was made that way by God) and the viper/priest (who was made that way by God) die and are judged according to their deeds.  

Let's pretend the atheist says, "Wow.  Who would have thunk it?"  Sorry I didn't believe in you.  I tried to be kind to people and stuff."

Let's say the viper/priest says, "YES!  Now I shall get my giant crown to replace the giant hat that I had on earth.  Now I shall be eternally happy while I watch those sick bastards who were foolish enough to doubt God writhe in agony while I laugh and laugh!"

Which one do you think is going to get the reprimand, "Depart from Me.  I never knew you."?

Which one gets to spend an 'age' learning to love instead of hate?

Well, since we're doing so much pretending, I'll go ahead and pretend that if an afterlife exists I'll get first class on account of my good behaviour.  Change my "sulfur smoked porter" to a "heavenly hopped pretend pale ale".

I'm going to pretend I can fly.

Scrybe, it occurs to me that your above argument is really an argument from "humanist morality", for lack for a more educated term.  I think behind it is a fact that we can both agree on, which is that morals exist separately from religious belief and practice.

Also, one question if you don't mind,

Quote from: "Scrybe"(Let's keep in mind He planned all this out.)

If this is so, and the atheists don't believe because god made them that way, then aren't the priests (the vipers that worship the book more than the god) also just behaving the way god built them?  If so, why should they be punished by god for doing what he programmed them to do (or, more mildly, for acting out their part in his plan)?  I ask because I'm curious how someone of faith feels about this.  I consider all this hypothetical, obviously because I don't believe any gods made anyone.

Because even though God is all-knowing and knows exactly what we're going to do - we still have free will - we have a rational human soul.

Sounds like a paradox?

Let's have an example:

I have a vision of the future, I see my friend getting run over by a bus the next day.

I run home, I grab my phone and I ring this guy up telling him to be careful and not to go outside tommorow.

So, this guy stays inside and doesn't get run over by the bus - but if he doesn't get run over by the bus, then I haven't seen the future at all.


God had to create us for him to be Omniscient, didn't he? Because if he saw that we were going to sin, then he didn't create us - then he wouldn't be Omniscent because we wouldn't have sinned.

JD,
at least, that's the way I think of it

Quote from: "Tom62"Why do you think that this God of you is a HE? If HE is male than HE has a penis, otherwise HE is an impotent IT. We must therefore assume that there is also a SHE somewhere around and some KIDS as well. Being a family man your God would more likely be someone like Odin instead of this rather pathetic single person the christians know from their bible. So f##k moral codes, just kill a couple of your enemies with a broadsword, while wearing a funny helmet,  and up you go to Valhalla (to feast on roasted boar and drink intoxicating mead) on the day you die.

i would love to go to valhala when i die. *slices off thors head 3x in a row*
i dont think an all knowing god would punish someone who didnt praise him without havign any proof of his existance.

Quote from: "Johndigger"Because even though God is all-knowing and knows exactly what we're going to do - we still have free will - we have a rational human soul.

Sounds like a paradox?

Let's have an example:

I have a vision of the future, I see my friend getting run over by a bus the next day.

I run home, I grab my phone and I ring this guy up telling him to be careful and not to go outside tommorow.

So, this guy stays inside and doesn't get run over by the bus - but if he doesn't get run over by the bus, then I haven't seen the future at all.


God had to create us for him to be Omniscient, didn't he? Because if he saw that we were going to sin, then he didn't create us - then he wouldn't be Omniscent because we wouldn't have sinned.

JD,
at least, that's the way I think of it

If god is all knowing that wouldn't necessarily mean he would have to create just because his knowledge of what would happen if he created had to be fulfilled to maintain his all knowing nature...it would just mean that he would know the possible outcome of any event that occurs.  In fact if he had to create due to his knowledge it woud take away his being all powerful.

Another way to look at it which makes more sense, imo;

For instance:  God could know that given the events leading up to a certain point Billy will either go to class on 7:20a on friday (B) or choose to skip and go to the movies with friends (-B).  Up untill the point Billy makes that decision God's knowlege of the future would include B and -B thus allowing him to be all knowing by knowing all possible events.

However, this view places god inside of time rather than the popular view of god being outside of time.  I think this view also protects free will and the outside of time version doesn't.  If god knows exactly what will happen to creation before creating it then we were all created to do exactly what he knew we would do and wanted us to do since he created anyway....no free will, like robots.  An omnimax creator outside of time would have the knowledge of all possible creations prior to creating and chose one based on this knowledge...those who are created when he made that choice are just fulfilling a plan and cant truly have free will; just the illusion of it.  He would know before creating anything that I would become an atheist and create this forum...he would know that all those who don't believe are hell bound from the start of creation.  The only way for us to have free will with this type of God is to change his knowledge of events...which would take away his omniscents.

Interesting, Laet. I like. Not bad at all.

JD

Quote from: "SteveS"Scrybe, it occurs to me that your above argument is really an argument from "humanist morality", for lack for a more educated term.  I think behind it is a fact that we can both agree on, which is that morals exist separately from religious belief and practice.

I wouldn't define it as "humanist morality".  But I agree that morality can be separated from religion provided a fair amount of societal conditions exist.  Morality comes from answering one of the big questions: "How ought we act towards each other."  There are religious answers to that question, as well as utilitarian aspects.  Hence the state, and societal mores.  

Just keep in mind that humanists don't have a better track record when it comes to humanitarianism.  Certainly, governments established on humanist pretence lack "morality" in their dealings with their populations.  (This is in no way a plea for theocracy, as it ends in much the same way.)  But the reason you and I answer this particular 'big question' the way we do has much to do with our upbringing and societal expectations and ideals.  I think most of us agree that we ought to love our neighbor as ourselves, (with the possible exception of the guy here who overuses the word hominid.) but this is not the natural human disposition.  A brief survey of history or anthropological study of native civilizations can easily show that to be true.  How we got from the ideal of "kill your neighbor and take his wife" to "love your neighbor" is an incredible (and incredibly complex) story.  One that I think would be impossible to tell without the religious components and influences.  The necessity of these influences can be debated, but to simply ignore them and pretend that you and I are as altruistic as we are simply by our own good grace is, I think, presumptuous and ungrateful.  Human civilization has had to go through a lot of crap to get us to the point where we were raised with these values.  

Yes, you can uncouple morality from religion at this point, but don't pretend that religion wasn't necessary to get us to the place we are now.  And don't be surprised if our newly unchained morality peters out after not too long, as it seems to do in highly secularized political experiments like the U.S.S.R. and China.            

Quote from: "SteveS"

Quote from: "Scrybe"(Let's keep in mind He planned all this out.)

If this is so, and the atheists don't believe because god made them that way, then aren't the priests (the vipers that worship the book more than the god) also just behaving the way god built them?

Yes.  I noted this in my post.

Quote from: "SteveS"If so, why should they be punished by god for doing what he programmed them to do (or, more mildly, for acting out their part in his plan)?

You are interpreting Hell® in the same way the majority of Christians do.  As punitive punishment that serves no other purpose.  But a study of the use of fire in Jewish and early Christian writing can make a convincing argument that fire is primarily used as a purging mechanism.  Fire is used to describe persecution, suffering, and other 'good' experiences that God uses to bring maturity and humility.  (An interesting side note is the fact that sulfur is an ancient cleansing and purifying element used for both practical and religious purposes.)

So I think your question does not apply to my beliefs since I (And I believe "the" Bible) don't view Hell® as punitive, but as purging and reconciliatory.  Though part of the implicit question you raise is "How can this be a fair system?"  If God creates many of us to be ass-clowns, we shouldn't be the ones to pay the price for His decision.  This would be true if suffering were pointless.  However, if suffering is as "the" Bible describes it: as prescriptive for maturation, bringing us into a state where we can be a part of God's final family, well then, we will all be very grateful for every bit of suffering we go through once we reach our destination.  (Just as a child hates school, but once an adult, can appreciate the necessary struggles to bring him/her to the point they are at.)  Once we see how every moment of pain caused us to progress, in some manner, towards heaven.  This can either be accomplished in this life, or in a metaphorical lake of purifying fire and sulfur.  I don't know whether one is preferable to the other.                          

Quote from: "laetusatheos"An omnimax creator outside of time would have the knowledge of all possible creations prior to creating and chose one based on this knowledge...those who are created when he made that choice are just fulfilling a plan and cant truly have free will; just the illusion of it. He would know before creating anything that I would become an atheist and create this forum...he would know that all those who don't believe are hell bound from the start of creation. The only way for us to have free will with this type of God is to change his knowledge of events...which would take away his omniscents.

I have come to this same conclusion.  I don't understand the Christians who say that God is all-powerful and all-knowing, yet insist that people can thwart God's will with their choices.  It's simply a matter of description.  If free-will exists, then God can not , by definition, be omniscient.  End of story.

Again, Scrybe, thanks for the answer.  I certainly accept that the way you present your definition of hell this is not, in fact, a contradiction.  Apologies if you addressed this in the original post and I was too obtuse (or drunk) to pull it out.

My only reason for invoking "humanist" was that you didn't think the priests were good because they had a god belief, or that the atheist were bad because they did not.  In fact, your definition of why the priests were behaving amorally, namely,

Quote from: "Scrybe"Let's pretend they mistranslated a word that means age-lasting into eternal so they could keep their Hellenistic views of eternal torment to use as a whip to keep people in line, threatening them with the worst thing imaginable.

is something I would agree with entirely.  So, I preceived a lack of absolutist morals, and more of consequentialist scheme here.  I could have read far too much into this.

Quote from: "Scrybe"to simply ignore them and pretend that you and I are as altruistic as we are simply by our own good grace is, I think, presumptuous and ungrateful. Human civilization has had to go through a lot of crap to get us to the point where we were raised with these values.

I certainly agree with this, 100%.  We are all a product of our environment and our times.  To judge our virtues and vices otherwise would be far less than honest.

I don't know if religion was required to get us to where we are now, but I don't pretend that actual instances of it haven't been helpful.  Historically, there were large parts of human education, discovery, and contemplation that were driven by religious people for what appeared to be religious purpose.  Was it required that they did so from religious grounds?  Maybe not, but historically they certainly did, I certainly acknowledge this.

About the failure of secular governments, well, if you'd like to stand together and throw stones at the establishment, then I'm your man.  Personally, it is my political feeling that a secular government is essential for humanist justice in a society.  I think governments fail morally because their officers, even in a government built on humanistic terms, are not themselves humanists.  I'm try to say, politicians suck, and the reasons they have become politicians are not good reasons.  So I'm not certain that it is the "tenets" of the goverments that fail us as much as the practioners that do so.  This is a political opinion, and a personal speculation, and I'm not really prepared to offer any evidence in support of this feeling of mine outside of casual observation of political events primarily in my own nation, so take all this with a large grain of salt (somewhat bitter, no  :wink:  ).

I've heard the school analogy with suffering before,

Quote from: "Scrybe"(Just as a child hates school, but once an adult, can appreciate the necessary struggles to bring him/her to the point they are at.)

and I think it's fun to present my atheist view point.  Working with this analogy, for me then graduation is death.  Final death, no afterlife.  So, you can understand why I would want to ditch class (avoid suffering), and wouldn't be too concerned about flunking exams along the way because I was out late drinking.

Quote from: "SteveS"I preceived a lack of absolutist morals, and more of consequentialist scheme here.  I could have read far too much into this.

How do you define consequentialist?  In order to maintain consistency in a view of a sovereign God, it is necessary to make a distinction between what is prescriptive morality, and what is necessary for God's good plan to come about.  In other words: shit happens because God made this world as a refiners fire for us.  But He does not tell us to throw shit at each other.  In fact, He specifically forbids it.  (In varying degrees and various times)  This is not double-talk.  God doesn't tell us to be good while hoping we will be bad.  He made us to be bad, but gives us examples of what good is, through the impartation of moral laws.  It seems to me that one of the major purposes for this refining furnace we are in is to teach us the difference between good and evil, right and wrong, beauty and ugliness, etc.  

So I don't think you could say that I am not an absolutist.  I believe there are transcendent absolutes that have been communicated to us by and absolute, transcendent God.  I merely acknowledge the fact that we are all actors in His story, and we are all villains to some degree.  God has graced some of us with more desire to be loving and selfless than others.  Thankfully, He didn't limit the allotment to only a small group of "His people", but gave that gift to many, even those who deny His existence.      

Quote from: "SteveS"I don't know if religion was required to get us to where we are now,...  Was it required that they did so from religious grounds?

I think it was.  Because there has to be a certain foundation before rational scientific explorations can begin.  That foundation starts in the philosophical, but quickly veers into the religious.  I think that certain questions have to be answered certain ways.  Like: "Is there a law of causality, or is every event random and chaotic?"  Different religions will answer this differently based on the personality of the deities.  Many deities are chaotic and malevolent.  In that sort of system there is not much point in researching, because the answers would always be changing.  But in a religious climate where a good god ordered reality, then you have a stable platform to start working on.  A religious climate that promotes meaning in people's lives, and especially equality will produce more motivation, opportunities, and inspiration that lead to innovation.

Of course these are all theories.  But my point is that as you said, "large parts of human education, discovery, and contemplation were driven by religious people for what appeared to be religious purposes"  That contemplation process can not evade religious questions and proposals.  


 

Quote from: "SteveS"Personally, it is my political feeling that a secular government is essential for humanist justice in a society.

You could be right about that.  Though I don't believe any true justice can be achieved on this earth for the reasons listed above.  (The stuff about free will and our inability to account for all the reasons that actions occur.)  But we should still strive for it as an ideal.  But I don't believe it makes a difference whether a government is religious or not.  It really comes down to the character of those in charge.  And if, as you say, all or most politicians are not in it for the right reasons, it really doesn't matter what their take on religion is; they will use their power to their own gain.

Quote from: "SteveS"So I'm not certain that it is the "tenets" of the goverments that fail us as much as the practioners that do so.

I agree to an extent.  But I would add that governing systems that understand and take human nature into account the best, fair better than those that rely on ideals that do not exist.  I think capitalism is the best system we have come up with so far, even though it has glaring holes in it that promote materialism and other very non-Christian ideals.  So yes, my political examples failed because of their leadership.  But I think that even with paragons of virtue at the helm, they would still have a tough go at it.  I mean, I'd love it if communism worked.  It's as close to the Christian ideal as we've concocted for a nation-wide government.  But there are just too many selfish bastards out there for it to work.  :cry:

Quote from: "SteveS"I've heard the school analogy with suffering before, and I think it's fun to present my atheist view point.  Working with this analogy, for me then graduation is death.  Final death, no afterlife.  So, you can understand why I would want to ditch class (avoid suffering), and wouldn't be too concerned about flunking exams along the way because I was out late drinking.

Haha!  Good counter analogy.  Here I thought that I came up with the school analogy by myself.  Doubtless one of those billion inputs that got filed away and regurgitated when called on.  Actually, my first analogy was going to be foul-tasting medicine.  But really, I like "the" bible's the most: refining metal.  

Anyway, your counter argument works for you because I'm assuming you are a man of high moral character.  Imagine those words coming from a drug-addicted hoodlum with a gun and you can see how dangerous that philosophy can become.  
 

Quote from: "Scrybe"How do you define consequentialist?

I think I can do this fairly well.  Is lying wrong?  Depends.  Is killing wrong?  Depends.  Is theft wrong?  Depends.  I could crack out some examples, but I think you get where I'm coming from.  Absolute in my opinion would be "killing is always wrong".  Or, "you must never blaspheme".  Make sense?

It seems clear that "I read too much into it".  I think I understand your position better after your explanation.

Quote from: "Scrybe"He made us to be bad, but gives us examples of what good is, through the impartation of moral laws.

I understand how your conclusions follow from this.  Just, understand that I can't agree with this premise.  I can't find a reasonable physical cause for believing that god imparted moral laws directly into our beings.  I believe morality evolved right along with our physical forms.  It's social instinct to me.  I take courage in the fact that we can improve it through rational consideration.

Quote from: "Scrybe"But I would add that governing systems that understand and take human nature into account the best, fair better than those that rely on ideals that do not exist.

Lol, I agree completely, just in the mirror image.  In other words, I believe that a naturalistic approach is a better understanding of human nature, and that it is divine morals that are the non-existent ideals.  I have no remedy for this other than to "agree to disagree".

Quote from: "Scrybe"(The stuff about free will and our inability to account for all the reasons that actions occur.)

To keep from muddling this discussion up, I'll post something more over on the free will thread.

Just a quick wrap on the government thing.  I think opening up the government to secular ideals presents a more fair base on which the politicians must practice.  This is my opinion.  I believe they have an easier time justifying mistreatment of individuals when operating on religious grounds.  If you are talking about your own personal religious views, I understand that this may not be the kind of issue that it is for more fundamental regimes, like the Taliban for instance.  The practical side of ideal government systems is something that appears very, very difficult to me, and I don't claim to have any answers, other than to be very aware of the risks and as good citizens to keep our government honest to the best of our ability.

Quote from: "Scrybe"But I think that even with paragons of virtue at the helm, they would still have a tough go at it.

Couldn't agree more strongly.  I think in your intro you mentioned LOTR as a favorite.  Remember in the movie version when Gandalf explains how even he would be corrupted by the ring?  I think the government problem is something like this.

Quote from: "Scrybe"Anyway, your counter argument works for you because I'm assuming you are a man of high moral character. Imagine those words coming from a drug-addicted hoodlum with a gun and you can see how dangerous that philosophy can become.

Of course, but every system faces this danger.  Imagine a Taliban leader patiently explaining that god created us and gave us moral laws.  That they are absolute and just and come from a higher power that no man can argue with.  That some particular woman was aware of the laws and yet had an extramarital affair anyway and must therefore be beheaded according to god's will.  We can see the same dangerous philosophy arising from absolute religious morals.

Quote from: "SteveS"I think I can do this fairly well.  Is lying wrong?  Depends.  Is killing wrong?  Depends.  Is theft wrong?  Depends.  I could crack out some examples, but I think you get where I'm coming from.  Absolute in my opinion would be "killing is always wrong".  Or, "you must never blaspheme".  Make sense?

Well, this is quite interesting, but it's in a very general sense. If we take some specifics perhaps we can derive some kind of absolute morals.


Such as "Is killing an innocent person for no reason always wrong?"

"Is theft simply for your own greed always wrong?"

I would say that, yes, there are absolute moral answers to these questions. To apply absolutes in a general sense doesn't really work.

In fact, it's usually called stereotyping.

But when we delve into specific situations, I believe in some kind of absolute morality.


JD

Johndigger, of course, but consider what you are doing:

Quote from: "Johndigger"Such as "Is killing an innocent person for no reason always wrong?"

Compare this with the statement,
Is killing an innocent person always wrong?  (i.e. take out the "for no reason" part)

I believe you could make an argument that killing an innocent person is permissible under certain circumstances.  For instance, when doing so prevents the deaths of a larger number of innocent people that will surely die if the other, solitary, innocent is not killed.  This is contrived, but you understand what I'm getting at.  It is the consequence of an act that defines whether or not it is moral, not the act itself.

When you add "for no reason" into it, you are adding the part that I consider the "consequential".  Effectively, what you are saying in this case is that "the reason" dictates the morality of the act, not the act itself (a point on which I would agree).

I'm sorry if you feel I'm being pedantic about this, but I was trying to argue this from the perspective of moral philosophy (a subject in which I admit I'm no expert, but I think I'm using my terms correctly).

Quote from: "Johndigger"In fact, it's usually called stereotyping.

What I did do was consider "absolute" morals as "deontological" morals.  While I don't think this is stereotyping, I will admit that deontology was perhaps not what Scrybe had in mind when he was postulating "absolute" morals.  It sure sounded like it to me, but I'm frequently wrong, and if I am in this case I'll offer apologies in advance.

Here's a Wiki Link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consequentialism#Deontology) to an article that describes the terms I'm using (see the part on Deontology for the comparison).  If I've guessed correctly that some of you do favor deontology, you may particularly enjoy the section of the article that lists criticisms of consequentialism  :wink:

I asked that particulary question for a reason - there's no point changing it to fit Moral Philosophy.  


The question I'm asking if is there really is "no reason" can an act be justified? This is obviously a rare case - but I think we can draw some kind of moral absolute from this.

JD,
though I appreciate your point, of course, but you didn't really answer my question - you more changed the question to suit you and then answered it.

Quote from: "SteveS"What I did do was consider "absolute" morals as "deontological" morals.  

Yes… this is a fascinating issue concerning a possible line between theists and atheists.  I absolutely would fall more on the side of deontology than consequentialism.  And I think the reason goes back to those ultimate questions I was referring to.  In the mind of a theist, there are two layers of meaning in every act and two layers of repercussions.  My opinion is that God has us acting out these things for the purpose of teaching and changing us.  Because of this, motive truly is the most important element of any act.  But if, as an atheist, you do not believe in that second layer of meaning and consequence, there really is no reason to consider motive, only the outcome.  

This brings to mind the movie, Gosford Park.  >>SPOILER WARNING<< In it, a mother poisons a man that she knows her son is going to kill.  The son stabs the man without realizing that he is already dead.  The mother carried out the poisoning so that her son, if caught, could not be charged with murder, since stabbing a corpse is not murder.  This underscores the idea of the technical, or consequential, overriding the motive.  A Christian view of the would-be murderer clearly shows that he is indeed a murderer, because his intention was murder.  The physical reality of the situation is that he is not a murderer.  But because a theist believes in more than the physical, there is a broader spectrum with which to judge an act as moral or immoral.  See?

So if I were put in a situation where I had to kill one innocent person to keep the whole world from being killed… sorry.  You'd be dead.  But if it makes you feel better, if I was in a situation where I had to kill myself to save the world, I would gladly do it.

[Derail]

Sorry to derail a bit, Scrybe, from your posting I understand that you are some sort of Christian. One of your beliefs (I think) was that there is no hell and that they mistranslated it.

It was sort of like what I would call (as a Catholic) "Purgatory" where you are purified by fire and everyone goes to Heaven in the end.

But, what about the Unforgivable Sin of Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit?


This isn't to bash or to poke holes in your beliefs, but this question sprang immediately into my mind so I had to ask.

Feel free to correct me on what you believe - this is simply my own (extremely limited) interpretation of your posts.

JD

[/Derail]

Hi guys, I'm trying to keep up, and I've addressed both of your (Johndigger and Scrybe)'s followups below.  I think we're truly getting somewhere, BTW.

Johndigger,  I'm not trying to change your question.  What I'm trying to do is draw a distinction between an absolute answer and an absolute method.

To avoid any appearance of dodging the question, I can unequivocally agree that "killing an innocent person for no reason" is absolutely wrong.  My reasoning is that I can think of no possible situation in which killing an innocent person, for no reason, can ever lead to a beneficial consequence, nor can the intended consequence ever appear to be beneficial.

The best way I can illustrate my point of view further is through my own simple minded "example laced blue collar" philosophy.  For illustration, let me choose a slightly different question:

"Is commiting a violent act on an innocent person allowable?".

I'm going to add on more specific variants of this question, and I'm going to explore how I, as a consequentialist, and a Pacifist, as a more absolutist, answer all these questions.
[highlight=white]
Responder = SteveS (consequentialist)

Q1: Is commiting a violent act on an innocent person allowable?
A1: Yes and No, it depends on the consequences.

Q2: Is commiting a violent act on an innocent person for no reason allowabe?
A2: No, because "no reason" is not a beneficial consequence.

Q3: Is commiting a violent act on an innocent person for a bad reason allowable?
A3: No, because a "bad reason" implies that the net consequences are not beneficial.

Q4: Is commiting a violent act on an innocent person for a good reason allowable?
A4: Yes, because a "good reason" implies that the net consequences are beneficial.
[/highlight]
Now for part two.
[highlight=white]Responder = Pacifist (absolutist)

Q1: Is commiting a violent act on an innocent person allowable?
A1: No, because violent acts are always wrong by their nature.

Q2: Is commiting a violent act on an innocent person for no reason allowabe?
A2: No, because violent acts are always wrong by their nature.

Q3: Is commiting a violent act on an innocent person for a bad reason allowable?
A3: No, because violent acts are always wrong by their nature.

Q4: Is commiting a violent act on an innocent person for a good reason allowable?
A4: No, because violent acts are always wrong by their nature.
[/highlight]
The pacifist feels that violence is always wrong, the consequences bedamned.  Another way to say this is that we have a duty (a categorical or moral imperative) to avoid violence.

Hopefully I've made it clear that it's the "absoluteness" of the method, versus the "absoluteness" of the answer, that is my distinction.  In both cases, our individual yes and no answers are absolute.  But how we arrived at them was not.

To me, you've provided an example of how religious thought seems absolutist to me with the following statement:

Quote from: "Johndigger"But, what about the Unforgivable Sin of Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit?

It appears that to you blasphemy against the holy spirit is wrong.  It is always wrong.  There is never any case in which the consequences might cause an act of blasphemy against the holy spirit to be okay.  This is a moral absolute, a duty to God, a moral imperative.

Consider the linkages to our above circumstance.
The act: above this is "commiting a violent act", here it is "blasphemy".
The target: above this is "an innocent person", here it is "the Holy Spirit".
The consequences: I need consequences to judge this act.  You do not.

I'm not trying to be adversarial, nor am I claiming that your above reasoning about blasphemy is wrong.  I am claiming that my motivations appear to be different then yours.  This difference is philosophical to me, and there is no objective way to resolve it.  We could be wrong or right in any combination, I don't even know how to tell.

Also, to claim that as individuals we are always deontological or always consequential is probably not very true.  I suspect that in truth we are all some sort of blend of these two ideas.  I would, however, suspect that what Scrybe said,

Quote from: "Scrybe"Yes… this is a fascinating issue concerning a possible line between theists and atheists.

is probably true, generically speaking.  Some very famous atheists seem, to me, to be leaning toward the consequential, and in my experience religious people tend to lean toward the deontological.  Also,

Quote from: "Scrybe"But because a theist believes in more than the physical, there is a broader spectrum with which to judge an act as moral or immoral. See?

I do see.  And I basically agree with you that this is a prime suspect for the difference in motivation.  One thing I feel I have to clarify,

Quote from: "Scrybe"Because of this, motive truly is the most important element of any act.

I think judging an act based on motive is common to both our philosophies.  I can't actually know ahead of time what the actual consequences of my actions are going to turn out to be, so I have to act on"intended consequences".  This motivation is important to me in judging an act, and I would agree that stabbing a person, with the intent to murder them, only not actually doing so because they were already dead and you didn't know, nonetheless qualifies the action as amoral because the intended consequences were amoral.  It's just that the "actor" got lucky because no negative consequences actually followed.  Our legal system draws a distinction between intended an actual consequences by treating "attempted murder" differently than actual murder.  

To me, this plays directly into what Scrybe said above.  If I feel the endpoint of my act is defined in physically reality, than I feel that there really was no harm done and the difference in "attempted" and "actual" murder is justified.  If I feel my act carries ramifications beyond this existence into an afterlife, then I can't actually claim that no harm was done.

Of course this entire area is totally grey, in my humble and confused opinion, and I believe I lack seriously in the education required to distinguish some nuances and pull apart whether certain of my moral proclivities are consequentialist "rules of thumb" or instead are actually more like absolutist "moral imperatives".  (shrugs).

But thanks for the feedback, I find this topic makes for enjoyable conversation, and I hope I've cleared up my view.

Quote from: "SteveS"Also, to claim that as individuals we are always deontological or always consequential is probably not very true.  I suspect that in truth we are all some sort of blend of these two ideas.

This is surely more true than any of us deontologists would like to admit!  

Quote from: "SteveS"I hope I've cleared up my view.

Yes, you did very well.  This has been a very good and infomative thread for me.  Thank you.

Quote from: "Johndigger"[Derail]

Sorry to derail a bit, Scrybe, from your posting I understand that you are some sort of Christian. One of your beliefs (I think) was that there is no hell and that they mistranslated it.

It was sort of like what I would call (as a Catholic) "Purgatory" where you are purified by fire and everyone goes to Heaven in the end.

But, what about the Unforgivable Sin of Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit? [/Derail]

Well, it's really not much of a derailing considering the topic of the thread.  Yes, I am some kind of Christian.  Universalist would be the closest box if you wanted to put me in one.  (Not to be confused with the Unitarians!)  

I did not say there is NO Hell®, I said our definition of it has been corrupted by several factors including a mistranslated word, other religions, and some very creative writing on the part of Dante and Milton.  

As to the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit, I won't get into that on this forum, since this is not an appropriate place for interdenominational exegesis comparisons.  But here is a link with a short article about the subject if you are really interested.

http://www.tentmaker.org/Dew/Dew1/D1-Bi ... nings.html (http://www.tentmaker.org/Dew/Dew1/D1-BibleThreatenings.html)

And here is a longer one:

http://www.tentmaker.org/articles/savio ... le-sin.htm (http://www.tentmaker.org/articles/savior-of-the-world/unpardonable-sin.htm)

The question of 'would god let good non-christians into heaven' was a bit of what helped me decide to commit to calling myself atheist.  I realized that a lot of Christians say that a pedophile or murderer, if they accept christ, can get into heaven, while a non-christians who lead ethical and compassionate lives won't.  I decided that if that really is true, I really don't want to worship a God who is full of such hatred and cruelty.  If that is what god is really like, I'd rather not spend eternity with him.

Quote from: "brainshmain"The question of 'would god let good non-christians into heaven' was a bit of what helped me decide to commit to calling myself atheist.  I realized that a lot of Christians say that a pedophile or murderer, if they accept christ, can get into heaven, while a non-christians who lead ethical and compassionate lives won't.  I decided that if that really is true, I really don't want to worship a God who is full of such hatred and cruelty.  If that is what god is really like, I'd rather not spend eternity with him.

I couldn't agree with you more here.  You see this a lot in the prison system in America.  Inmates who have committed the most unspeakable crimes go into prison and then claim themselves to be "reformed' as a direct result of "finding" Jesus.  So to add to your quote from above, "If that is what god is really like, I'd rather not spend eternity with him ---- or some of the people he deems acceptable to enter."

Quote from: "User192021"Ok, obviously this is a complete hypothetical so I ask that you simply play along.

Let's pretend for just a moment that God exists and there is, indeed, a heaven and a hell (or something of that sort).  If an atheist lives his whole life by a relatively strict moral code, generally treating others as he would wish to be treated, would God care if that person believed in him or not?  

As a fairly new atheist, this is something I've contemplated while going through the "what if I'm wrong" phase.  I find it to be somewhat unreasonable that God would punish people for doubting his existence based on the (lack of) evidence HE gave us using the critical, inquisitive minds HE gave us.  Why would God punish people for using the same logical thinking processes which have enabled the human race to survive.   In fact, I think God would prefer to have people who used their minds in a rational manner during their time on earth in his presence rather than people who simply followed the flock and never bothered to challenge themselves and the belief system they happen to have been born into.

I suppose it doesn't matter since I have absolutely no earthly reason to believe any such place exists...but it's something I would imagine most of us have at least considered.  Thoughts?

Nah, we're all gonna burn.  I don't know of any religions that advocate salvation through nonbelief even if you've been a god damn saint which I personally am not.    God bless all of you though, no.... really.

Quote from: "brainshmain"The question of 'would god let good non-christians into heaven' was a bit of what helped me decide to commit to calling myself atheist.  I realized that a lot of Christians say that a pedophile or murderer, if they accept christ, can get into heaven, while a non-christians who lead ethical and compassionate lives won't.  I decided that if that really is true, I really don't want to worship a God who is full of such hatred and cruelty.  If that is what god is really like, I'd rather not spend eternity with him.

Ditto. Very well said. According to Christianity you can essentially commit any crime you want... be an absolute douche bag of a person all your life. As long as you accept Jesus as your own personal savior... Heaven.  Or you could lead a very moral life... do good deeds everyday of your life, but happen to be an atheist... Hell.  Why anyone would want to be appart of a religion with this kind of logic is beyond me.

My in-laws use this against me as some sort of threat. It's hard for them to grasp that I don't find Hell threatening when I don't believe it exists. If anyone tries to use this against you, just ask them if they're scared of the Boogie Man.

Mmmm-mmm-mmm-mmm-mmm... Toasty!

I've got handbaskets for everyone!

Threat Based Compliance - gotta love it,
JoeActor

yes they would, anyone who is a good person is allowed in to heaven bad atheists who slander god would not be admitted though according to the bible.

Well, i am a lifelong atheist but new to this website, and don't know how to put a quote in the square, but RE: would god let atheist into heaven if there was a god.  Personally, i agree with someone above who stated they would not enjoy being surrounded with theists!  Me either!  They'd have to have a special wing for all of us!  ha ha!
I used to wonder this myself when i was younger, but i felt very comfortable with assessing my own behavior as kind and moral.  
If there is a god, and if she doesn't base our worthiness for 'reward' on our behavior--i don't want anything to do with her, Send me on to 'hell'......

As a nurse who has watched many deaths, cared for many who have suffered brain damage, i have a whole other thread i could start on even trying to separate the mind and the body for any type of afterlife....  can't be done.  You can't even have a thought with an oxygen deprived brain, let alone be who you once were....but that is another thread...and we are all sort of playing along with a hypothetical question...

I told my religious relative that she could comfort herself about worrying if I would get my atheist ass into heaven with that bible passage something about "When i was hungry, you gave me food, etc" so the guy in the story who never went to church got to go into heaven based on HIS BEHAVIOR.  I actually loathe  and laff at anything from the bible--it means nothing to me, and almost everything in it is horrible, and easily contradicts its own self, but that worked for my relgious relative's fears.  
But maybe i will start a thread somewhere on spearating the body and mind...cuz i have some passionate thoughts on that.
~jean

Its funny how Atheists, who claim to have no beliefs in God or an afterlife, can even have opinions, a synonym for belief, on it.  You should all take a vow of silence on this if you are concerned with being true Atheists.  You can only have beliefs about this stuff.  You can’t have knowledge about it, because it isn’t possible in this life.

"I live my life in total morality, but don’t believe in an afterlife."

That statement itself is contradictory, because you are content with never seeing your loved ones again, and you DON’T KNOW for sure if you will or not…but you choose the option anyway.   If you are not content with never seeing them again, then I feel sorry for you, because you have chosen to feel horrible because of your BELIEFS.

So, I guess, if I were God, I’d postpone your entrance into heaven until you know the importance of feeling horrible about all those people going away, and then choosing to not feel horrible by believing they don't go away.

Quote from: "MoralCompass"Its funny how Atheists, who claim to have no beliefs in God or an afterlife, can even have opinions, a synonym for belief, on it.  You should all take a vow of silence on this if you are concerned with being true Atheists.  You can only have beliefs about this stuff.  You can't have knowledge about it, because it isn't possible in this life.

Do Christians read fiction other than the Bible? Of course so. That doesn't mean they believe in it. I don't think Moby Dick exists, but I can speak of the white whale in the hypothetical all I want.

Quote from: "MoralCompass""I live my life in total morality, but don't believe in an afterlife."

That statement itself is contradictory, because you are content with never seeing your loved ones again, and you DON'T KNOW for sure if you will or not...but you choose the option anyway.   If you are not content with never seeing them again, then I feel sorry for you, because you have chosen to feel horrible because of your BELIEFS.

It's not immoral to err on the side of reason. It's reasonable. It has nothing to do with morality. Since I won't be seeing my grandfather again, I've made peace with his passing into death and I've moved on. He wouldn't want me pining away thinking about him and allowing delusion to hurt my perception of the world on his behalf. The moral thing, then, is to be true to myself and go on living life with my eyes as open as I can get them.

Death is a perfectly natural process that all life seems to go through, so instead of inventing an elaborate fantasy to avoid it, I honor the dead by recognizing them as they really are. They will decompose and their remains will reenter the life cycle as they grow into a tree or what have you.

Quote from: "MoralCompass"So, I guess, if I were God, I'd postpone your entrance into heaven until you know the importance of feeling horrible about all those people going away, and then choosing to not feel horrible by believing they don't go away.

I'm glad you're not god because you wouldn't exist.

I don't feel horrible about anything. I miss those who have passed into death, but the mourning period is something to come out on the other side of as a part of a healthy process.

MoralCompass, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

I didn't read any of the replies, just the original message...

God, according to general consensus, is the ultimate morality (if he exists). He also knows everything, including your thoughts. So if you die and have to explain your life to Moses (I think? whoever judges you at the Gates of Heaven), he will be able to say "well I guess, knowing you personally, that I didn't leave enough evidence in your life to show that I exist. You had no way of deducing that there is a heaven. So it would be really unfair to send you to hell for eternity just for that, so now I guess I'll just have to judge your moral actions, not your religious ones."

basically, it would be unfair for god to not prove he exists and send us to hell for it.

QuoteDo Christians read fiction other than the Bible? Of course so. That doesn't mean they believe in it. I don't think Moby Dick exists, but I can speak of the white whale in the hypothetical all I want.

Yeah, of course you can speak hypothetically about Moby Dick, because atheism doesn't restrict that.  The focus of atheism is God.  You are a strong atheist being that you have claimed God does not exist, but if you want to be true to yourself, know that you can't KNOW this.  The only alternative is to believe - make a reasonable guess at it, and form a hypothesis.   Speaking hypothetically about something entails opinions in the argument about it.  If you were a weak atheist, sure, speaking hypothetically about God, but it would be going against the definition of a weak atheist, being that you are forming a belief about god.  

Strong atheists claim they know something that cannot be known, which is just absurd.

QuoteI don't feel horrible about anything. I miss those who have passed into death

"I miss" is a negative feeling.  So you do feel bad about something.  Yeah, you went through the greiving process, so you don't feel HORRIBLE about it.  But, you did initially, and you will feel that pain again, thinking their being has ceased to exist, and you will also.  It's just lessened, believing you will be with them again.

Correction:

If you were a weak atheist, speaking hypothetically about God, it would be going against the definition of a weak atheist, being that you are forming a belief about god.

Quotebasically, it would be unfair for god to not prove he exists and send us to hell for it.

To send us to hell for not knowing it exists would be unfair.  Then, everyone would go to hell, because apperently, nobody knows.  God would not be the ultimate being of morality if he sent everyone to hell.

Personally, I think it would be a poor test of will if it did prove its existance.  Anyone with reason would want heaven over hell, and no doubt do whatever they have to, and ban together to make sure everyone else followed the same path.

Its like a teacher standing over the shoulder of a known cheater on an exam.  The cheater obviously isn't going to do anything because he knows the teacher is watching.  His true nature would not be revealed.  If she leaves the room, and watches on a hidden camera, his will is shown.

Quote from: "MoralCompass"Correction:

If you were a weak atheist, speaking hypothetically about God, it would be going against the definition of a weak atheist, being that you are forming a belief about god.

You'd only be "going against" understanding in the hypothetical. It's not like we're saying, conclusively, that god exists and then based on that actual belief asking the question of whether good atheists will be going to heaven.

I don't think you understand what "hypothetical" means.

Quote from: "MoralCompass"Personally, I think it would be a poor test of will if it did prove its existance. Anyone with reason would want heaven over hell, and no doubt do whatever they have to, and ban together to make sure everyone else followed the same path.

This suggests anyone with reason cannot enter heaven, which proves the point that it's not reasonable to believe in god.

Quote from: "MoralCompass"Its like a teacher standing over the shoulder of a known cheater on an exam. The cheater obviously isn't going to do anything because he knows the teacher is watching. His true nature would not be revealed. If she leaves the room, and watches on a hidden camera, his will is shown.

The god figure expects people will throw out the reasonable despite any evidence and then rewards the unreasonable. Think about that. The god character rewards those who turn on everything that makes sense around them in favor of delusion.

Quote from: "MoralCompass"Its funny how Atheists, who claim to have no beliefs in God or an afterlife, can even have opinions, a synonym for belief, on it. You should all take a vow of silence on this if you are concerned with being true Atheists. You can only have beliefs about this stuff. You can’t have knowledge about it, because it isn’t possible in this life.

[sarcasm]

Its funny how theists, who claim to have no beliefs in atheistic ideas, can even have opinions, a synonym for belief, on it.  You should take a vow of silence on atheism if you are concerned with being true Theists.

[/sarcasm]

 :?   Surely, the hypocritical and self-contradictory nature of your approach occurs to you?  Anyway, I could never abide by a vow of silence - I'm blabby by nature.

Quote from: "MoralCompass"Its funny how Atheists, who claim to have no beliefs in God or an afterlife, can even have opinions, a synonym for belief, on it.  You should all take a vow of silence on this if you are concerned with being true Atheists.  You can only have beliefs about this stuff.  You can’t have knowledge about it, because it isn’t possible in this life.

You don't have any idea what atheists are all about.  You don't know us or what we believe... all you know is the rhetoric you've been taught.  You should take a vow of silence until you can be a true Christian.  I don't have absolute knowledge of god any more than you do.  It's ALL conjecture by humans, nothing more, nothing less.

Quote from: "MoralCompass""I live my life in total morality, but don’t believe in an afterlife."

That statement itself is contradictory, because you are content with never seeing your loved ones again, and you DON’T KNOW for sure if you will or not…but you choose the option anyway.   If you are not content with never seeing them again, then I feel sorry for you, because you have chosen to feel horrible because of your BELIEFS.

I'm not content with the fact that I'll never see my family or loved ones again.  Again with your ignorance and self-importance.  I'd LOVE to spent eternity with my loved ones.  I just don't believe such a concept is factual.  And whether or not I believe in an afterlife has NOTHING to do with how moral I am... none whatsoever.  

I've been told REPEATEDLY, including TWICE today, "Gee Kerri... you're just too nice to be an atheist."  If I'm wrong and your god chooses to ban me from heaven for thinking for myself and doing the right things in my life DESPITE not believing in an afterlife, I'll gladly go.  Surely he knows that the overwhelming majority of his self-confessed followers can't say the same thing.

Quote from: "MoralCompass"So, I guess, if I were God, I’d postpone your entrance into heaven until you know the importance of feeling horrible about all those people going away, and then choosing to not feel horrible by believing they don't go away.

I'm not even going to dignify this nonsense with an answer.  I'm done here. :x

QuoteYou don't have any idea what atheists are all about. You don't know us or what we believe... all you know is the rhetoric you've been taught. You should take a vow of silence until you can be a true Christian. I don't have absolute knowledge of god any more than you do. It's ALL conjecture by humans, nothing more, nothing less.

Yes, I do.  An atheist does not hold any beliefs in God, and an atheist does not hold any beliefs in "not God."  You cannot say God does not exist, because you don't know, and you cannot believe it does not exist or believe that it does exist.

There are two possibilities for a sane person's position on something.  Reasonable belief(hypothesis, opinion, unproven theory, assumption) or knowledge.  Atheists have neither, regarding God, and therefor have no position.

So quick to assume I'm a Christian.  I'm agnostic.  I see God's existance or non-existance as being unprovable.

Quote from: "MoralCompass"There are two possibilities for a sane person's position on something.  Reasonable belief(hypothesis, opinion, unproven theory, assumption) or knowledge.  Atheists have neither, regarding God, and therefor have no position.

I disagree... I have a reasonable belief that there is no god.  There has been no empirical proof that god exists.  The default position is that god doesn't exist.  Therefore, the ONLY sane and reasonable position is that of the atheist.

If someone came up to me and told me there was a divine and magic teddy bear in a closet somewhere in America, it's not up to me to search every closet on the continent until I find it.  The person making the assertion is responsible for providing proof (and a book describing the closet doesn't count as proof).  Show me the teddy bear or I'll be safe in assuming the teddy bear doesn't exist outside of that person's imagination.

Quote from: "MoralCompass"So quick to assume I'm a Christian.  I'm agnostic.  I see God's existance or non-existance as being unprovable.

I apologize for jumping to conclusions but you must admit that you are coming across quite pompous, telling us what we do and don't believe and what makes us sane or not.

QuoteIts funny how theists, who claim to have no beliefs in atheistic ideas, can even have opinions, a synonym for belief, on it. You should take a vow of silence on atheism if you are concerned with being true Theists.

No, you see, since I'm agnostic, I can have belief in some of your ideas, like the Bible not being the literal word of God, and add my opinions on God.  So, its not hypocritical.

QuoteI have a reasonable belief that there is no god.

A reasonable belief is a belief nonetheless, so by that view, you would not be an atheist.

Quote from: "MoralCompass"

QuoteI have a reasonable belief that there is no god.

A reasonable belief is a belief nonetheless, so by that view, you would not be an atheist.

You are splitting hairs based on semantics.  Not a logical or acceptable means of debate.

Therefore, I respectfully disagree.  See previous example.  I don't have to believe the teddy bear exists or doesn't exist.  The default position is that there is no god until proven.  Therefore, atheism is the default position.... the non-existence of a god doesn't require belief... it just IS.

Quote from: "MoralCompass"No, you see, since I'm agnostic

Okay - my bad, I offer you a sincere apology - I unhesitatingly admit that I did assume you were a theist.  My assumption was based on your words - I could not find an introductory thread started by you, so I had to work with what I had.
In that light, I still see a problem with your approach:

Quote from: "MoralCompass"Strong atheists claim they know something that cannot be known, which is just absurd.

Okay.  Personally, I'm a "weak atheist", or "agnostic atheist", or whatever you'd like to call it.  I do not, because I feel I cannot, claim to know that god does not exist.  Furthermore, and as regards "pure" agnosticism, I do not claim to know that this cannot be known - I only claim that currently it is unknown.  I would also claim that I do not know whether the existence of god is unknowable or not.  If we define god to be "that which is unknowable", then sure, but how did we arrive at that definition?  At this point one could offer no opinion on god whatsoever, outside of "god is unknowable".  Any claim to particular further knowledge about god would blatantly contradict the statement that "god is unknowable", right?

So fair question: do you claim to know that god's existence or non-existence is unprovable?  Or, do you merely claim to believe it.  Are you a "strong agnostic" or a "weak agnostic"?  If you claim to know that god's existence is unprovable, then I would kindly ask you to explain how you acquired this knowledge.

Finally, 'cause this one is a biggie,

Quote from: "MoralCompass"

Quote from: "rlrose328"I have a reasonable belief that there is no god.

A reasonable belief is a belief nonetheless, so by that view, you would not be an atheist.

I reject this statement entirely.  "Theist" is one who believes in god.  Put an 'a' on the front, and you have "atheist", one who is not a theist; one who does not believe in god.  An atheist is defined by the belief that they do not have.

The words "theist", "atheist", and "agnostic" all refer to what we believe.  Taken from http://www.dictionary.com

Quotea·the·ism

â€"noun
1.   the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2.   disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.
[Origin: 1580â€"90; < Gk áthe(os) godless + -ism]

One can't help but notice that "belief" is specifically cited by these definitions, and not knowledge.

By making the unjustified claim that to be considered an atheist a person must assert that they know there is no god, you are intentionally weakening the position of atheism by portraying it incorrectly to be something that it is not.  This is a classic "straw man" fallacy.

QuoteYou are splitting hairs based on semantics. Not a logical or acceptable means of debate.

The meaning of things is pretty important.  I'm not focusing on anything trivial here.

Au contraire, mon ami.... you are hinging your entire argument on the word "belief," as if it is the most important concept in this argument.  It's not, not by a long shot.  Let's discuss the concept of organized religion, if you want to get picky about words and how they affect the general populace and how our country will evolve.  A belief in god is merely the starting point... the argument is much more broad.

I'm crashing after this.  I'll admit I've lead us all on a tangent, and to rlrose328, I am sorry if I seem inflated.

Anyway, I am a strong agnostic and believe that god is unknowable to humanity.  Yeah, I'm using definition as the basis of my argument, but where is the trouble in that?  It's not just the definition of "belief", but the definition of "atheism" as well
.
I have a friend, philosophy major, who defined atheism in symbolic logic, and it was clear that no beliefs were held.  He was very frustrated with number 1 in the Dictionary.com definition, and rightly so, because it is very different from the second one.  

I don't know if the dictionary.com definition is a product of the Christian majority and ignorance, but I do know that it probably needs addressing.
 
I'll read replies when I get up.

Quote from: "MoralCompass"I have a friend, philosophy major, who defined atheism in symbolic logic, and it was clear that no beliefs were held.  He was very frustrated with number 1 in the Dictionary.com definition, and rightly so, because it is very different from the second one.  

Atheism is quite simply the understanding of the nonexistence of god or gods. Your buddy is describing nontheism or indifference.

Quote from: "Willravel"Atheism is quite simply the understanding of the nonexistence of god or gods. Your buddy is describing nontheism or indifference.

Yeah, what he said.  

"Atheism, as a philosophical view, is the position that either affirms the nonexistence of gods or rejects theism.  When defined more broadly, atheism is the absence of belief in deities, alternatively called nontheism."

That is taken from Wikipedia, and yes, it can be changed by everyone, but I assure you, close tabs have been kept on something like this.

So, it appears that universally, atheism and nontheism are the same thing and your definition is less popular, but also the one most Christians give, which may frustrate alot of atheists, since the other is bigger in the atheist community.
There are more weak atheists than strong atheists, and the weak ones harbor a complete lack of belief.  Belief, which, in my knowledge, is the same thing as opinion.

Note - the order of definitions mentioned above is in Dictionary.com as well.
Shouldn't the prominent definition be listed first?
Could anyone explain why it isn't?

Good afternoon, MoralCompass.  I too crashed after my last post!  It was getting late  :?  

Okay, where to go from here?  Firstly, this discussion is entirely semantical, no doubt about it.  We are arguing what these words mean - that is a perfectly acceptable definition of "semantics" - understanding meaning especially as it relates to language.  Secondly, I have issue with the dictionary definition as well, but if this is how the phrase is commonly used in practice then I don't know what I can do about it.

I agree that "atheism" and "nontheism" are one and the same - if "theism" is "A", then "atheism" is "not A".

Quote from: "MoralCompass"There are more weak atheists than strong atheists, and the weak ones harbor a complete lack of belief.

This statement is incomplete and therefore misleading.  They "harbor a complete lack of belief" --- in what?  Anything?  No, they "harbor a complete lack of belief in the existence of deities".  Whether they have additional opinions or not is immaterial to the fact that they lack a belief in the existence of deities.  

It seemed to me that you were trying to argue here that since a weak atheist lacks belief in a deity then the weak atheist has no opinions on deities.  This is ridiculous to me - a weak atheist may lack a belief because they lack an opinion (never heard of god) or they may lack a belief because they do have an opinion and in their opinion there is no god!  In both cases they lack a belief in god: in one they have an opinion and in one they do not, but don't they both lack a belief in the existence of gods?  

To illustrate this further, what if I don't believe that unicorns exist.  I have a concept of what a unicorn is, and I don't know that unicorns do not exist, but I believe that unicorns do not exist.  Then, you say to me, "a unicorn is a horse with two horns on it's head".  I say, "Gee, to me a unicorn is a horse with only one horn on it's head".  You reply "you don't believe in unicorns, and thus are unqualified to have an opinion on them, so you should take a vow of silence on unicorns".  I reply, "I don't believe that unicorns exist, but I still have an opinion that a unicorn is a horse with one horn, not two, on it's head.  What you have described is a variation of a unicorn, or some new idea."  See what I mean?  Would you honestly argue that since I don't believe unicorns exist I can't have any opinion whatsoever on the definition of a unicorn?

Back to atheism and agnosticism, let me try to summarize your view; it seems to me that you are saying there is a large difference between the following two statements:

1) I don't believe that "god exists" is true

2) I believe that "god does not exist" is true

I would agree that there is a difference; I'm just not sure how large it is.  The difference would be the implied reason for distinguishing the statements.  Both of these statements, though, are consistent with the atheistic definition that we have agreed upon, namely "I don't believe the statement 'god exists' to be true", and thus I would say that both statements qualify as atheistic.

1) I don't believe "god exists" is true because I believe the answer to the question "does god exist?" is unknown

2) I don't believe "god exists" is true because I believe the answer to the question "does god exist?" is no

It seems to me that you are defining "agnostic" as view 1, and "atheist" as view 2.  Please correct me if I'm wrong.

In either case, though, if an atheist is a non-theist, then an atheist is a person who "lacks belief" that "god exists" is true, so both of these views are atheistic views.

Further food for thought, which may interest your philosophical friend, the philosopher George H. Smith (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_H._Smith) (I deliberately refrain from qualifying him as "published" or "professional" because I'm not making an appeal to authority here, merely presenting an argument made by a philosopher) argues that all agnostics are inherently atheists by arguing that a position of "agnostic theist" is incoherent.  Please see the summary of his argument presented on the wikipedia at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_theism#George_H._Smith.27s_criticism

Since you have personally vouched for the reliability of the wikipedia I presume you will not object to my quoting it here.  Also, please note that the argument presented by George Smith utilizes the definition of atheism that we have agreed on, namely "lacking a belief in a deity", as you yourself have quoted from the wikipedia:

Quote from: "MoralCompass"When defined more broadly, atheism is the absence of belief in deities

Can you see where I'm coming from?  If an atheist is a person lacking a belief in a supreme being, then whether the reason for this lack is that the question is unknowable or that the question is knowable but the proposition is false, both of these people could very accurately and truthfully be said to be "lacking a belief in a supreme being", and should thus be considered atheists by the definitions we have agreed upon.

Just a final note, MoralCompass, this topic was interesting and enjoyable to me, but ultimately I don't care what label I'm stuck with.  If you want to call me an agnostic, go ahead.  I call myself an atheist for the reasons I present.  But, ultimately, I'm not emotionally attached to the label in any way.  I'm more interested in learning whether or not my views and beliefs about god and the world are correct.  To argue that atheists should take a "vow of silence" on hypothetical religious propositions is absurd to me.  Effectively, the atheists are saying "if we're wrong, what would you think about god/heaven/religion/afterlife/etc".  What could possibly be objectionable about that?  Most atheists would also term themselves "free thinkers", which is following thought without boundary --- thinking about things regardless of what others think.  Most likely, they would use this as an explanation for why they would ignore your suggested "vow of silence".  This certainly applies in force to me personally.

MoralCompass your line of thinking and posts are a mess.

First, as someone else said, you don't know what hypothetical means.  Here's an example, would you rather have robot arms or robot legs?  For further clarification, by robot arms and legs, I mean Robocop-like.  Regardless of what you think about the possibliity of making, and affixing, robot arms or legs to a human, you can answer the question.  If you can't, you should leave the realm of philosophy.

Second, unless you are agnostic in regards to all gods, then your position of strong agnosticism is untenable. Belief in the Abrahamic god holds as much weight as belief in the Norse gods, both of which hold as much weight as belief in the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Also, you need to clarify what you mean by god if you don't claim that your agnosticism relates to all gods.


Belief and opinion are similar but not the same, see: hypocrisy.

QuoteFirst, as someone else said, you don't know what hypothetical means.

Don't jump to conclusions about me.  I know what hypothetical means.  Its taking a supposed situation, not proven true, and being logical about it.  You suppose something is true, knowing its not, and put reason on top of that.   Science tests hypothetical situations to develop theories.
 
"If you were a weak atheist, speaking hypothetically about God, it would be going against the definition of a weak atheist, being that you are forming a belief about god."

I admit this quote was unclear.  Let me explain.
The hypothesis isn't knowledge yet.  Its a belief, still unproven, but backed up by reason (Irreducibility Complex)
Sure, we can ask hypothetical questions for fun, but when it comes down to the nature of reality, things start to get a little more serious.  Once again, I am being a semantics nazi, but its important.  The belief is the prediction with reason behind it in the hypothetical.
"If God DOES exist, it is my belief that he will welcome atheists into his kingdom?"
So, of course you can speak hypothetically about god, and I take back what I said about the vow of silence - that was rude.  But if you want a hypothetical to be useful, you must take it seriously, and you are then entering the realm of belief, which is not part of atheism.

 
Your question "Would you rather have robot arms or legs?" actually ISN'T hypothetical, because it has been proven a possiblity already, so its just a normal question, there is no requirement for a hypothesis or "if" in that.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4275245.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4275245.stm)

QuoteSecond, unless you are agnostic in regards to all gods, then your position of strong agnosticism is untenable.

I can believe in whatever god I see fit.  All strong agnostics are saying is they believe it is impossible for the existance of a god to be knowable.  We can still believe.

QuoteYou suppose something is true, knowing its not,

Ugh...correction:

You suppose something is true, not knowing whether it is or not.

Quote from: "MoralCompass"Its taking a supposed situation, not proven true, and being logical about it. You suppose something is true, knowing its not, and put reason on top of that. Science tests hypothetical situations to develop theories.

No.  You are confusing a hypothesis with a hypothetical question.  And even that you're muddy on.

This is what you're doing, and I'll use a hypothetical question as the example:

Q:  If the world were to end tomorrow, what would you do?
You:  The world's not gonna end tomorrow.  We shouldn't talk about it.

A hypothetical question has nothing to do with the validity of anything in the question or response. At it's simplest a hypothetical question asks, "What If?".

Quote from: "MoralCompass"Your question "Would you rather have robot arms or legs?" actually ISN'T hypothetical, because it has been proven a possiblity already, so its just a normal question, there is no requirement for a hypothesis or "if" in that.

In re: the link, Wow, that's cool, robot arms.  Still, the question is hypothetical, unless you already have both robot arms and legs.

Here's another hypothetical, that could possibly be true, but isn't, as far as I know:  If you had a million dollars what would you do?

Now, you might have a million dollars thus negating the hypothetical, but I'd venture to say that you don't.  While you certainly could make a million dollars one day, a "proven possibility", you don't have it now, thus a hypothetical.  For your edification here's another hypothetical with choices of two "proven possiblities":  Would you rather die by drowing or by burning?

Quote from: "MoralCompass"But if you want a hypothetical to be useful, you must take it seriously, and you are then entering the realm of belief, which is not part of atheism.

Once again you are demonstrating you know not what a hypothetical is.  Belief has nothing to do with hypotheticals.  Except that you might believe robot legs are cooler than robot arms.

Quote from: "Moral..."I can believe in whatever god I see fit. All strong agnostics are saying is they believe it is impossible for the existance of a god to be knowable. We can still believe

You failed to answer the question. I didn't say you couldn't believe in any god.  
Do you believe in a specific god over any of the others?  If you do, your situation is untenable.  If not, then what is your definition of a god?

MoralCompass - I just don't understand your insistence on a totally personal, stiflingly narrow definition of atheism that to the best of my knowledge no human being on earth uses except you.  You say:

Quote from: "MoralCompass"and you are then entering the realm of belief, which is not part of atheism.

I am convinced that no matter what argument I present, what personal way I describe my beliefs, what source we quote, what definition people in general and atheists in particular use, you will remain ultimately deaf to the evidence and stubbornly cling to your own made-up definition.

You grant yourself the right to believe anything:

Quote from: "MoralCompass"All strong agnostics are saying is they believe it is impossible for the existance of a god to be knowable. We can still believe.

but for some reason deny atheists this right.  For what possible reason?

An atheist can clearly say that he/she believes that god does not exist.  A person who believes that god does not exist clearly qualifies as having "no belief that god exists".  How can you not see that?  Every source that has been quoted in this thread, as regards definition of atheism, is completely consistent with these statements.

How do you generalize "lack of belief in the existence of god" to "lack of belief in anything"?  If I say "I believe the sun will rise tomorrow", are you going to tell me "you are entering the realm of belief, which is not part of atheism, so you cannot believe the sun will rise"?  Is this not obviously absurd?

An atheist can hold any belief whatsoever save one: belief in the existence of god.  Why?  Because an atheist is a person who does not have a belief in the existence of god.  Any other belief one holds would have no bearing on whether or not the person is an atheist.  No belief that god exists?  Atheist.  Belief that god exists?  Theist.

Quote from: "MoralCompass"I admit this quote was unclear.  Let me explain.
The hypothesis isn't knowledge yet.  Its a belief, still unproven, but backed up by reason (Irreducibility Complex)
Sure, we can ask hypothetical questions for fun, but when it comes down to the nature of reality, things start to get a little more serious.  Once again, I am being a semantics nazi, but its important.  The belief is the prediction with reason behind it in the hypothetical.

Hypothesis isn't belief. Hypothesis is a suggestion as to something that may be possible. When I postulate a hypothesis that before the big bang there was a big crunch, I need not believe it to be true. I can consider it as one of the possibilities, based on evidence, but my belief is not required. Arguing about god has nothing to do with the 'nature of reality'. It's a flight of fancy. Had this thread been called "If Odin DOES exist, would good atheists be allowed in Valhalla?" it would be the same thing. If you posted in a thread like that, would it necessitate you no longer believing in god? Of course not.

Quote from: "MoralCompass""If God DOES exist, it is my belief that he will welcome atheists into his kingdom?"
So, of course you can speak hypothetically about god, and I take back what I said about the vow of silence - that was rude.  But if you want a hypothetical to be useful, you must take it seriously, and you are then entering the realm of belief, which is not part of atheism.

This isn't about usefulness. This is about fun. This thread is here for entertainment. "What if the crazies are right?! Bwahaha!!" That kind of thing. So, to be clear, this isn't supposed to be useful in any philosophical sense.

QuoteMoralCompass - I just don't understand your insistence on a totally personal, stiflingly narrow definition of atheism that to the best of my knowledge no human being on earth uses except you. You say:

My bad for not being more specific, and therefor I brought you to believe something about me that wasn't true.  I should have tagged god onto the end of my definitions of atheism.  So, let me make it clear that atheists have the right to believe anything as long as it is not god, or anything that god entails.

However, this is not where the restriction stops.  The extention of the definition is "the lack of belief in the non-existance" of god.  This is covered by Smith himself in "The Case Against God."  I can't quote him for lack of access to an excerpt, but I'll see if I can get my buddy's copy again.  I'll post one, because it was explained well.

QuoteA person who believes that god does not exist clearly qualifies as having "no belief that god exists".

Not necessarily.  These are two different things.  In the first, a belief is held.  In the second, no belief is held.  You can't say the two are the same.  Like I said, I'll come back with an excerpt.

QuoteHypothesis isn't belief. Hypothesis is a suggestion as to something that may be possible.

Belief is a suggestion as to something that may be possible.

Give me a situation where hypothesis isn't easily replaceable by the word belief and I will give in.    

When I say belief, I am of course talking about reasonable believe, something that has education behind it.  So, don't bring me an example such as "My hypothesis of trees being able to communicate with human beings proved to be false."

That would be an example with irrational belief in it, and would also, not be a hypothesis because there is no education behind it.

In regard to my agnostic theism, I do not lean to any particular god, but rather look with reason to the higher power that thinks logically.

There are hypothetical questions that exist for fun, and hypothetical questions that exist for the pursuit of knowledge.  The ones that are asked for usefulness have hypothesis behind them.  Look it up, its in the definition of hypothetical.
 
An atheist may not see asking hypothetical questions just for fun as something, when applied to existence of god, inappropriately insincere, but what value are you giving your philosophy if aren't taking the subject of it seriously?

Quote from: "MoralCompass"

QuoteHypothesis isn't belief. Hypothesis is a suggestion as to something that may be possible.

Belief is a suggestion as to something that may be possible.

Now I see where the problem is. You've confused hypothesis with belief. A belief is something that is accepted reality to the believer. A hypothesis is a possibility to someone who is able to step back and realize that it's only a possibility and is not a certainty.

Quote from: "MoralCompass"Give me a situation where hypothesis isn't easily replaceable by the word belief and I will give in.  

"I believe in God the Father almighty, maker of heaven and Earth, and of all things visible and invisible..."... are you telling me people who pray the Lord's Prayer are only saying god might exist? I suspect there are over a billion people who would disagree. Belief is certain.

Quote from: "MoralCompass"When I say belief, I am of course talking about reasonable believe, something that has education behind it.  So, don't bring me an example such as "My hypothesis of trees being able to communicate with human beings proved to be false."

As we see with faith in the divine, though, belief is not always rational. As a matter of fact, if you venture over to Dictionary.com, you'll see that in the second definition of "Belief", the following is given:

Quoteconfidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof:

Not susceptible to proof.

Quote from: "MoralCompass"An atheist may not see asking hypothetical questions just for fun as something, when applied to existence of god, inappropriately insincere, but what value are you giving your philosophy if aren't taking the subject of it seriously?

You yourself said that a hypothetical question can be for fun.

The question in question doesn't devalue our philosophy at all. Moving outside one's philosophy in hypothetical flights of fancy does not value or devalue the philosophy. It's separate. Just as me going to a club on Friday wouldn't devalue or value what I do at work. Think about it in those terms.

Ugh, I'm done trying to explain what a hypothetical question is.


That being said, on to what a hypothesis is and should be.  

A hypothesis has nothing to do with belief, or at least shouldn't.  It is about testing something that might be true, or you want to find out if it is true.  Belief does not enter into the equation.  Belief is irrelevent, unless you are a poor scientist.  You might want your hypothesis to be true, but that is also poor science if you let it cloud your judgement or testing.

Case in point: Intelligent design is poor science because its adherrents use their belief to determine the hypothesis and conclusions.  They take what they believe to be true, their God doing everything, and formulate a hypothesis and false conclusions to support their beliefs.  No actual science whatsoever.

Good science - hypothesis and conclusions from testing dictate beliefs
Bad science - beliefs dictate hypothesis and conclusions

Hi Donkeyhoty! And thanks for welcoming me!
I hope that this reply reaches You. I didn't follow this chain from the start, but You sure make sense.
I also wanted to answer another new member on the issue of "why has religion persisted so long". My answer would have been; type 'cargo cults' on a search engine.

Thanks,
PR

PS. Why are so few people contributing to this site?

MoralCompass, thanks for the clarification - I'm glad we could finally come to agreement on some of this!  Phew.

Quote from: "MoralCompass"let me make it clear that atheists have the right to believe anything as long as it is not god, or anything that god entails.

Ah, sneaky, trying to slip one past me!  Up until the comma I agree, from there I do not.  If god entails "A", this just means that if "god exists" is true then "A exists" must also be true.  Notice that this is not reversible; if "A" exists it does not imply that god exists (if all you know about god and "A" is that god entails "A").

If "X" is a rose(A), then "X" is a flower(B) because all roses are flowers.  Thus, "A" entails "B", and being a rose entails being a flower.  If you flip it around, it does not work.  If "X" is a flower, it does not follow that "X" is a rose, because not all flowers are roses.  Being a flower does not entail being a rose.

So, your statement is exactly backwards.  You should have said "or anything that entails god".  In other words, an atheist cannot believe anything from which follows the necessity of god's existence.  An atheist cannot believe that the planets move due to the will of god, because "planets moving by the will of god" entails "god exists".

See what I mean?

Quote from: "MoralCompass"Not necessarily. These are two different things. In the first, a belief is held. In the second, no belief is held. You can't say the two are the same.

Yes necessarily.  These are two different things - I agree. But, I'm not saying they are the same.  What I am saying, is that if I hold a belief that god does not exist, then I cannot also hold a belief that he does.  This would be contradictory.  So, if I truly believe that god does not exist, then I must also lack a belief that he does.  They are two different things, but the first implies the second.  To say otherwise would be illogical, because of the law of noncontradiction.

For clarity's sake:
 
Holding a belief that god does not exist implies lacking a belief that god exists.

Lacking a belief that god exists does not imply holding a belief that god does not exist.

This is why they are different; it is also why we can draw an implication from one position, but not from the other.

Quote from: "MoralCompass"However, this is not where the restriction stops. The extention of the definition is "the lack of belief in the non-existance" of god. This is covered by Smith himself in "The Case Against God." I can't quote him for lack of access to an excerpt, but I'll see if I can get my buddy's copy again. I'll post one, because it was explained well.

Please do (this was a terrific book, IHMO).  I think that you are partially mistaken here, if I'm reading you right.  I think that a person who has a "lack of belief in the non-existence of god" could be either; theist or atheist.  I think Smith would agree - in particular, Smith's "implicit atheist" would definitely lack a belief in the non-existence of god, but would still be considered an atheist due to his simultaneous lack of belief in the existence of god.

So, specifically, lacking a belief in the non-existence of god is a possible but non-required attribute of an atheist.

In particular, the relevant parts of George Smith's book Atheism: The Case Against God would be Part 1, Section 1, subsections I through IV.

A rose is a rose is a rose,
Gertrud Stein
To do is to be,
Plato
To be is to do,
Aristotle
Do be do,
Sinatra (Kurt Vonnegut Jr)

:lol:

Apropos commentary, paperino.

Of course as Jesus told me so and she never lies.

'she'?
That reminds me of some Sage Francis lyrics...

you must remember do that the judicial/christian god can NEVER give proofe of his/her/its existence, proofe denies faith, without faith he is nothing

to anser your question, no, i dont think atheists would be welcome in heaven, the bible says were wicked creatures and should be stoned (with stones, not drugs, )

Quote from: "User192021"Ok, obviously this is a complete hypothetical so I ask that you simply play along.

Let's pretend for just a moment that God exists and there is, indeed, a heaven and a hell (or something of that sort).  If an atheist lives his whole life by a relatively strict moral code, generally treating others as he would wish to be treated, would God care if that person believed in him or not?  

As a fairly new atheist, this is something I've contemplated while going through the "what if I'm wrong" phase.  I find it to be somewhat unreasonable that God would punish people for doubting his existence based on the (lack of) evidence HE gave us using the critical, inquisitive minds HE gave us.  Why would God punish people for using the same logical thinking processes which have enabled the human race to survive.   In fact, I think God would prefer to have people who used their minds in a rational manner during their time on earth in his presence rather than people who simply followed the flock and never bothered to challenge themselves and the belief system they happen to have been born into.

I suppose it doesn't matter since I have absolutely no earthly reason to believe any such place exists...but it's something I would imagine most of us have at least considered.  Thoughts?

Well if God is all-loving like many claim then he/she'd have no problem in forgiving. I've went about the what if I'm wrong thing too....If I am....I am...... but if I felt the God of the bible did/does exist I probably wouldn't follow along anyways.

DirtyHeathen raises a point that always bothers me about god being "infinite", as most theologians assert.  If god is infinite, then he would be infinitely forgiving, right?  So - there could be no transgression for which he (or she, or it, or whatever pronoun you use for god) would not eventually forgive you - making an eternal stay in hell a blatant contradiction to the definition of god.  Internal inconsistencies like this seem to absolutely plague the theologians.

Of course, if god is infinite "in all aspects", then wouldn't god also be infinitely vengeful?  Of course - you can't really be both infinitely vengeful and infinitely forgiving, can you?  So - god can't really be infinite without qualification - he can't be infinite in all regards in all ways.  This is total nonsense.

To User192021's point: if god is real and cares about people being "good", then I don't see why he would punish you whether or not you believe in him.  If, however, god is real but god is the egomaniac described in the bible and only cares about sycophantic worshippers - then we're screwed.  Of course, its hard to imagine a personality with unlimited power who created all things having this sort of emotional disorder.....

Imagine a pop psychology analysis of god - "all those years, damning people to eternal hell; it was really a cry for help!  He just wanted to be loved!"

 :wink:

my ex friend.... told me that he always tried to be a good person because he worries about what happens when he dies. my reply was always that i will cross that bridge when i come to it. but really, like if what we are told when we start school about this wonderful god thats all loving etc etc etc then who gives one if you're a good person or not? he's all loving, so we'll all be fine yeah?! its all one big contradiction